Capitalism.

[NewLiberty]

OK, so you have less iconoclasm and more "willful misunderstanding". 
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What's your basis for claiming intellectual superiority in this battle of wits? Maybe you're wilfully misunderstanding what crumbs was saying? Mercatosaurus Lex got a Darwin award, Homo Governmentus took over. The end. Seems easy enough. If you'd seen "Jurassic Park" then you'd know that all sorts of bad stuff happens when people try to resurrect dinosaurs.

I make no claim to superior intellect.  Nor do I claim to be engaging in a battle of wits.  If you are looking for a battle of wits, look elsewhere. I am only looking to better understand.
In a dialog, folks often re-characterize the statements of their interlocutor in order to show that they understand the intent of the statement.
Willful misunderstanding is evident when the re-characterizations are consistently the opposite or orthagonal. I suspect this is rewarding for him in some way, but the only meaningful response is to be pedantic which is tiring and with a wit-battler, and generally fruitless, so I am happy to let others do that.

Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). Contract law is not dead, quite the contrary it thrives.  Further to that, increasingly it is engaged without direct government engagement through binding arbitration.  So the trend (at least in the USA) is toward MORE lex mercatoria, rather than less.  This is sensible as it is less expensive for all to have a smaller government footprint in places where it has overstepped.
The claim that the existing large governments use of the lex merc principles means that it is dead/extinct/dinosaur, is as absurd as claiming that math is dead because there are now computers. 
I am not seeking to convince anyone of anything and I deeply appreciate thoughtful refutations and being shown where my thought has failed.  When apparently intelligent folks take these thoughts, ignore them, and attack thoughts which are not mine, it is not my responsibility to corral those folks and attempt to get them to attack mine instead.  As much as I'd prefer that, I am very happy to let them run off on their own and enjoy themselves.


The July 4 Rainbow Gathering in Montana looks delightful.  Montana summers are some of the best I've had with many fond memories of picking some fresh raspberries that the deer missed, and pulling the occasional rainbow trout out of Flathead Lake. 

[ktttn]

OK, so you have less iconoclasm and more "willful misunderstanding". 
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What's your basis for claiming intellectual superiority in this battle of wits? Maybe you're wilfully misunderstanding what crumbs was saying? Mercatosaurus Lex got a Darwin award, Homo Governmentus took over. The end. Seems easy enough. If you'd seen "Jurassic Park" then you'd know that all sorts of bad stuff happens when people try to resurrect dinosaurs.

I make no claim to superior intellect.  Nor do I claim to be engaging in a battle of wits.  If you are looking for a battle of wits, look elsewhere. I am only looking to better understand.
In a dialog, folks often re-characterize the statements of their interlocutor in order to show that they understand the intent of the statement.
Willful misunderstanding is evident when the re-characterizations are consistently the opposite or orthagonal. I suspect this is rewarding for him in some way, but the only meaningful response is to be pedantic which is tiring and with a wit-battler, and generally fruitless, so I am happy to let others do that.

Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). Contract law is not dead, quite the contrary it thrives.  Further to that, increasingly it is engaged without direct government engagement through binding arbitration.  So the trend (at least in the USA) is toward MORE lex mercatoria, rather than less.  This is sensible as it is less expensive for all to have a smaller government footprint in places where it has overstepped.
The claim that the existing large governments use of the lex merc principles means that it is dead/extinct/dinosaur, is as absurd as claiming that math is dead because there are now computers. 
I am not seeking to convince anyone of anything and I deeply appreciate thoughtful refutations and being shown where my thought has failed.  When apparently intelligent folks take these thoughts, ignore them, and attack thoughts which are not mine, it is not my responsibility to corral those folks and attempt to get them to attack mine instead.  As much as I'd prefer that, I am very happy to let them run off on their own and enjoy themselves.


The July 4 Rainbow Gathering in Montana looks delightful.  Montana summers are some of the best I've had with many fond memories of picking some fresh raspberries that the deer missed, and pulling the occasional rainbow trout out of Flathead Lake. 

*audible sigh of longing* thankyou...
Can you give me a rundown of this lex mercatoria buisiness?
A historyperhaps?

[crumbs]

OK, so you have less iconoclasm and more "willful misunderstanding".  
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What's your basis for claiming intellectual superiority in this battle of wits? Maybe you're wilfully misunderstanding what crumbs was saying? Mercatosaurus Lex got a Darwin award, Homo Governmentus took over. The end. Seems easy enough. If you'd seen "Jurassic Park" then you'd know that all sorts of bad stuff happens when people try to resurrect dinosaurs.

I make no claim to superior intellect.  Nor do I claim to be engaging in a battle of wits.  If you are looking for a battle of wits, look elsewhere. I am only looking to better understand.
In a dialog, folks often re-characterize the statements of their interlocutor in order to show that they understand the intent of the statement.
Willful misunderstanding is evident when the re-characterizations are consistently the opposite or orthagonal. I suspect this is rewarding for him in some way, but the only meaningful response is to be pedantic which is tiring and with a wit-battler, and generally fruitless, so I am happy to let others do that.

Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). Contract law is not dead, quite the contrary it thrives.  Further to that, increasingly it is engaged without direct government engagement through binding arbitration.  So the trend (at least in the USA) is toward MORE lex mercatoria, rather than less.  This is sensible as it is less expensive for all to have a smaller government footprint in places where it has overstepped.
The claim that the existing large governments use of the lex merc principles means that it is dead/extinct/dinosaur, is as absurd as claiming that math is dead because there are now computers.  
I am not seeking to convince anyone of anything and I deeply appreciate thoughtful refutations and being shown where my thought has failed.  When apparently intelligent folks take these thoughts, ignore them, and attack thoughts which are not mine, it is not my responsibility to corral those folks and attempt to get them to attack mine instead.  As much as I'd prefer that, I am very happy to let them run off on their own and enjoy themselves.


The July 4 Rainbow Gathering in Montana looks delightful.  Montana summers are some of the best I've had with many fond memories of picking some fresh raspberries that the deer missed, and pulling the occasional rainbow trout out of Flathead Lake.  

You claim that lex mercatoria is not dead?  In that case your definition of "lex mercatoria" or "dead" differs widely from accepted norm  
"Lex mercatoria (from the Latin for "merchant law") is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period."¹  I point to the use of past tense throughout the article if English is not your native language.  "Medieval," in case you're not familiar with history, is a reference to the past.  The lex mercatoria, as delineated by our wise wikepedos is, i'm afraid, no more.  It's in the past.  Gone. Ceased to exist. Dead.  Dead  Dead.
Wikip wraps up on this curiously un-wikipedo line, with allusions to faith, hope, and other ... "facts":
"What remains of lex mercatoria precepts today is a qualified faith in self-regulation by merchants, and a reluctance to surrender the efficiencies of merchant practice to state confinement."¹  
Sure, parts of lex mercatoria are incorporated into modern merchant/international trade law, just as humans share 98% of our genes with chimps & more than 50% with chickens.  The 50% similarity may be decieving to some -- implying that we evolved from the noble chicken.  Nah.  We just had common ancestors.  RRRRinnnGGGG!  Class over!
  

1) -wikip.
While few authorities draw direct comparisons between the Medieval Law Merchant and international commercial arbitration, the latter is sometimes treated as part of a 'new' Law Merchant. See generally T.E. Carbonneau, ed., Lex Mercatoria and Arbitration (Yonker, NY: Juris Publications, 1998); and specifically, B. Goldman, 'Introduction I,' ibid. xix; F.A. Mann, 'Introduction II,' ibid. xxii; A. Lowenfeld, 'Lex Mercatoria: An Arbitrator's View,' ibid. 71.

Edit:  Format & typo
Edit2:  Lex mercatoria was never the total body of law for *anything* -- it was a body of law for *merchants,* as the name implies.  These merchants were always subject to laws of their puny states, and law of whatever land they happened to be on.  Being the exclusive body of law was never the case for lex mercatoria.
Edit3:  Rainbow Gathering/Rainbow trout - pun

[NewLiberty]

The July 4 Rainbow Gathering in Montana looks delightful.  Montana summers are some of the best I've had with many fond memories of picking some fresh raspberries that the deer missed, and pulling the occasional rainbow trout out of Flathead Lake. 

*audible sigh of longing* thankyou...
Can you give me a rundown of this lex mercatoria buisiness?
A history perhaps?

Simply put, it is the non-violent non-governmental dispute resolution process used in trade.  
Though in places where governments arise, they tend to usurp it as their authority.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria

lex mercatoria is about as old as commerce, and there is evidence of it as old as there is writing.  Sumarians had a form of it more than 4K years ago.

It has been most useful for places where there are different cultures mixing, and each culture may have different "house rules" for how trade is conducted.

When you look at the Trust system that is evolving here, it mirrors it tightly. 
The claim that it is dead is a weird one.  Or maybe just extremely picky.  As if something which arises everywhere they care to look doesn't exist simply because the language used to describe it is a different one.  One might as well claim that love is dead because folks aren't building temples to Venus.
Call it lex mercatoria, call it the code of Ur, or in modern America, binding arbitration.  A time traveler would find enough similarity to be less confused than many of its critics here.

Though Montana beckons, my little farm would not do well without my attendance.  I'd have to attract some help with that to gain enough freedom for me to attend.  The rest of today is going to be absorbed by fixing my well, so I will leave you in the good hands of the wit-battlers.

[ktttn]

OK, so you have less iconoclasm and more "willful misunderstanding". 
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What's your basis for claiming intellectual superiority in this battle of wits? Maybe you're wilfully misunderstanding what crumbs was saying? Mercatosaurus Lex got a Darwin award, Homo Governmentus took over. The end. Seems easy enough. If you'd seen "Jurassic Park" then you'd know that all sorts of bad stuff happens when people try to resurrect dinosaurs.

Any specific, line by line objections to this rather promising proto-state dinosaur amalgamation?

[crumbs]

[...]
Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). [...]

Of all the examples to pick   Please understand that this board is a monarchy.  It is fully owned & controlled by Theymos.  He makes the rules.  You follow them, or GTFO.
See how that works?
There's an interesting read here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238474.0 , where you'll find out just how well your example is working (SPOILER ALERT:  Shilling and sockpupetry turns out to be perfectly fine here.  How come?  'Coz Theymos said so.)
On this forum, most businesses fail, turn out to be scams, or both.  On this forum, mining bonds are sold to people who belive in other fairy tales but not in learning to maths. On this forum, Pirateat40, fully doxed, walked away with all of your money in broad daylight, and this hugbox, knowing *exactly who & where he was*, couldn't get its *millions* back.

Nice work, lex mercatoria, color me impressed.

[ktttn]

[...]
Lex mercatoria is not dead as evidenced by its use in bitcointalk.org (and most anywhere there is trade). [...]

Of all the examples to pick   Please understand that this board is a monarchy.  It is fully owned & controlled by Theymos.  He makes the rules.  You follow them, or GTFO.
See how that works?
There's an interesting read here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238474.0 , where you'll find out just how well your example is working (SPOILER ALERT:  Shilling and sockpupetry turns out to be perfectly fine here.  How come?  'Coz Theymos said so.)
On this forum, most businesses fail, turn out to be scams, or both.  On this forum, mining bonds are sold to people who belive in other fairy tales but not in learning to maths. On this forum, Pirateat40, fully doxed, walked away with all of your money in broad daylight, and this hugbox, knowing *exactly who & where he was*, couldn't get its *millions* back.

Nice work, lex mercatoria, color me impressed.

Are you familiar with Salvador Dalí's Monarchichal Anarchism?
The origin of kingship in arbitration?
The structure of the Linux and Bitcoin fondations are both like this.
I'd rather have one point of failure for an evil regime than millions of landed politician capitalist with a presumed mandate.

Government-and it's siamese twin, Capitalism, as it is today, evolved from the ruins of Serfdom.

[crumbs]

[...]
Are you familiar with Salvador Dalí's Monarchichal Anarchism?
The origin of kingship in arbitration?
[...]

At the risk of totally blowing my credibility, i'll confess:
I'm not a professional politician.  I don't politic for a living.
I'm not even a political hobbyist -- not once have i marched my stuffies & dollies to conquer Equestria.
And (and this one really hurts) i'm not a political scholar either:  The only thing i know about Dali is what he looked like & all those melty clocks.  Maybe a hair more, but nothing about his politics.  When it comes to politics, i'm a consumer, and possibly a victim -- inasmuch as the 2 balcony geezers who yell "Horrible!" on The Muppet Show could be seen as victims.

[Rassah]

Lex Mercatoria, or non-governmental trade law, did receede a bit this past one or two centuries, primarily because countries were very isolationist, with lots of conflict. Instead we had war, tariffs, trade restrictions, currency manipulation, etc. But it is very much alive still, and has been exploding in use this past decade. According to Wikipedia, there are entire organizations that are focusing on developing a body of international trade law, specifically for globalized trade and transnational companies that aren't based in any single country. A lot of it is based on arbitration, and is just a more nuanced version of the old Lex Mercatoria. Because of this, and Bitcoin, and other tech that is making trade easier and regulation harder, whenever someone says something like, "We are getting more socialist," or "You need government for trade/capitalism," I go all

[NewLiberty]

If there someday occurs these matrilinial autark communities, there may simultaneously exist other communities which are different.  When these communities collide, there will possibly be some sort of dispute.  Resolving that dispute without violence or worse might be a goal.  If the collision happens to be with a community that does engage in trade (even if the autarks dont) understanding the principles of the other may serve them well.

The traders approach and roll out their tinkers wagon to start hawking their wares.
Maybe the autarks say "we have nothing extra, we are autarks".
The traders may say, "well, look at these nifty seeds, and try this tasty drink.
The autarks reply "no, we have what we need and nothing to offer, all is for all"
And the traders say "check out this self maintaining robot that eats garbage, it will save you an hour a day, and by the way I really like that hat over there, can I give you this robot as a gift?"
And the autarks say "the hat is not mine, all is for all"

The trader leaves the robot and takes the hat,
Later some of the autarks find a use for the robot to reduce their toiling and both are pleased with themselves for adhering to their principles and go on their way.

[ktttn]

Capital misnomer.
Arbitrary syncopation.

Controvert insipid..
Fallacies.
 
National
Privacy
publicity
personality

 Secretive seed

[crumbs]

Lex Mercatoria, or non-governmental trade law, did receede a bit this past one or two centuries, primarily because countries were very isolationist, with lots of conflict. Instead we had war, tariffs, trade restrictions, currency manipulation, etc. But it is very much alive still, and has been exploding in use this past decade. According to Wikipedia, there are entire organizations that are focusing on developing a body of international trade law, specifically for globalized trade and transnational companies that aren't based in any single country. A lot of it is based on arbitration, and is just a more nuanced version of the old Lex Mercatoria. Because of this, and Bitcoin, and other tech that is making trade easier and regulation harder, whenever someone says something like, "We are getting more socialist," or "You need government for trade/capitalism," I go all

In other words, the modern economic miracle (banks & corporate giants needing bailouts, major US cities going bankrupt & paying their creditors 10c/$) is due to the reawakening lex mercatoria?  

I love you bro, GTF in the van!

[crumbs]

If there someday occurs these matrilinial autark communities, there may simultaneously exist other communities which are different.  When these communities collide, there will possibly be some sort of dispute.  Resolving that dispute without violence or worse might be a goal.  If the collision happens to be with a community that does engage in trade (even if the autarks dont) understanding the principles of the other may serve them well.

The traders approach and roll out their tinkers wagon to start hawking their wares.
Maybe the autarks say "we have nothing extra, we are autarks".
The traders may say, "well, look at these nifty seeds, and try this tasty drink.
The autarks reply "no, we have what we need and nothing to offer, all is for all"
And the traders say "check out this self maintaining robot that eats garbage, it will save you an hour a day, and by the way I really like that hat over there, can I give you this robot as a gift?"
And the autarks say "the hat is not mine, all is for all"

The trader leaves the robot and takes the hat,
Later some of the autarks find a use for the robot to reduce their toiling and both are pleased with themselves for adhering to their principles and go on their way.

Is this an example of you "[trying to] better understand"?  Or is this some form of Libervoodo, like ghost shirts?  
Protip: "The shirts did not work as promised, and consequently 153 Lakota Sioux died"  
Spoiler alert: Magic: the Gathering site sez its bank is "having some technical problems."  Wake up & smell the coffee
edit: typo.

[NewLiberty]

If there someday occurs these matrilinial autark communities, there may simultaneously exist other communities which are different.  When these communities collide, there will possibly be some sort of dispute.  Resolving that dispute without violence or worse might be a goal.  If the collision happens to be with a community that does engage in trade (even if the autarks dont) understanding the principles of the other may serve them well.

The traders approach and roll out their tinkers wagon to start hawking their wares.
Maybe the autarks say "we have nothing extra, we are autarks".
The traders may say, "well, look at these nifty seeds, and try this tasty drink.
The autarks reply "no, we have what we need and nothing to offer, all is for all"
And the traders say "check out this self maintaining robot that eats garbage, it will save you an hour a day, and by the way I really like that hat over there, can I give you this robot as a gift?"
And the autarks say "the hat is not mine, all is for all"

The trader leaves the robot and takes the hat,
Later some of the autarks find a use for the robot to reduce their toiling and both are pleased with themselves for adhering to their principles and go on their way.

Your example seems very strange. Firstly, to me the "all is for all" attitude seems naive -- something a medieval community might have if they've never been exposed to some of the most basic aspects of human nature at all. They never thought that maybe basic arithmetic and accounting skills are necessary to keep track of (i.e.: to account for) all the effort spent making, doing, and toiling? Even if the communities are somehow restricted in size to about 150 people to keep Dunbar happy, it seems utterly implausible that no-one would ever attempt to take more than their fair share, or that there would be absolutely no laziness and everyone would be equally workaholic.

The only way that that seems possible is if a group of like-minded people find each other on the Internet, get together and artificially create that community. Even if it works for them, how can they fail to realise that a large part of it relies on filtering out all the other people?!

The autarky/self-sufficiency seems easy enough, but what the heck has:

Matrilineality is a system in which descent is traced through the mother and maternal ancestors.

got to do with anything?!

Frankly, I'm not sure.  It was something that zarathustra was fond of.  (Who has not joined this thread yet so it may not provoke any more of an answer than it already has)

An exercise in contemplating some mythical future, envisioning that community encountering another.

So yes.. it is a simple attempt to reflect back what I read in a different form, in order to better understand what it was all about.  I'm one of those weirdly curious folks that when I encounter something different or new, my fist impulse is not always to see if I can break it or poke fun at it.  I may not have any use for it, but I surely wouldn't know until I figure it out.

[Zarathustra]

The autarky/self-sufficiency seems easy enough, but what the heck has:

Matrilineality is a system in which descent is traced through the mother and maternal ancestors.

got to do with anything?!

Frankly, I'm not sure.  It was something that zarathustra was fond of.  (Who has not joined this thread yet so it may not provoke any more of an answer than it already has)

An exercise in contemplating some mythical future, envisioning that community encountering another.

So yes.. it is a simple attempt to reflect back what I read in a different form, in order to better understand what it was all about.  I'm one of those weirdly curious folks that when I encounter something different or new, my fist impulse is not always to see if I can break it or poke fun at it.  I may not have any use for it, but I surely wouldn't know until I figure it out.

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

[Rassah]

Historically, the selfsufficient matrilineal community is the anthropogenic organisation before patriarchal paternalist collectivism (animal farming and men farming) was established 10'000 years ago. It will also be the organisation of the future, because monogamous, patriarchal, paternalistic, surplus producing collectivism is not sustainable.

So, are you saying that you're hoping that in the future, one type of sexism will be replaced by another, while the rest of us are working on making gender irrelevant in regards to pretty much everything?

[crumbs]

In other words, the modern economic miracle (banks & corporate giants needing bailouts, major US cities going bankrupt & paying their creditors 10c/$) is due to the reawakening lex mercatoria?  

Lol! You think bank bailouts and cities have anything to do with international trade  That's so cute!

Lol!  It's cuter that you don't!
Pay attention -- lex mercatoria was brought up in this thread as the ideal, sole body of law, in it's entirety.  Not as a handy subset to be followed by merchants in international trade. Now GTF in the van, baby! 

[NewLiberty]

In other words, the modern economic miracle (banks & corporate giants needing bailouts, major US cities going bankrupt & paying their creditors 10c/$) is due to the reawakening lex mercatoria?  

Lol! You think bank bailouts and cities have anything to do with international trade  That's so cute!

Lol!  It's cuter that you don't!
Pay attention -- lex mercatoria was brought up in this thread as the ideal, sole body of law, in it's entirety.  Not as a handy subset to be followed by merchants in international trade. Now GTF in the van, baby! 

You are wrong if you are referring to how anyone but you has brought up the notion of lex mercatoria.
The idea that it is ideal, or the sole body of law in its entirety is your idea alone, and you offered it in that vein apparently in order to dismiss it as such.  It appears that no one disagrees with you on that.

Others have suggested that it was an historical example of a method of non-violent, non-governmental dispute resolution. 
A historical example was used because it can be looked at in static form as it was, rather than something current which is still evolving.
There exist other examples by different names throughout history which use the same principles.
This was in the context of trying to figure out whether trade requires violence. 
There may remain some disagreement as to whether trade requires violence. 
Do you have a position on that, or anything at all useful to comment on?

[crumbs]

In other words, the modern economic miracle (banks & corporate giants needing bailouts, major US cities going bankrupt & paying their creditors 10c/$) is due to the reawakening lex mercatoria?  

Lol! You think bank bailouts and cities have anything to do with international trade   That's so cute!

Lol!  It's cuter that you don't!
Pay attention -- lex mercatoria was brought up in this thread as the ideal, sole body of law, in it's entirety.  Not as a handy subset to be followed by merchants in international trade. Now GTF in the van, baby!  

You are wrong if you are referring to how anyone but you has brought up the notion of lex mercatoria.
The idea that it is ideal, or the sole body of law in its entirety is your idea alone, and you offered it in that vein apparently in order to dismiss it as such.  It appears that no one disagrees with you on that.

You jest.  See boldface below:

How does capitalism require a state?

To protect your property.

If I'm happy to let lex mercatoria suffice for that, have you anything else?  Seems pretty thin grounds for capitalism's need of a state.

Maybe it does require one, but I don't see how.  
If it does, that is a place where work is needed to reduce the burden on that requirement, and thereby lower the costs for human interaction.

The governmentisgood site looks more like arguments for how government has interfered with free trade and made it less effective.  
A list of how government has attacked free trade is not much of a requirement for government from free trade.  

Others have suggested that it was an historical example of a method of non-violent, non-governmental dispute resolution.  
A historical example was used because it can be looked at in static form as it was, rather than something current which is still evolving.

You're saying you trolled me?  You were speaking figuratively?  You seemed pretty resolute about defending this lex mercatoria as a sufficient law set.  You'd like to retract?

There exist other examples by different names throughout history which use the same principles.

Let's stop playing around & have them, in that case.  Offer up.

This was in the context of trying to figure out whether trade requires violence.  
There may remain some disagreement as to whether trade requires violence.  
Do you have a position on that, or anything at all useful to comment on?

Please.  The "useful" argument is dishonest.  If i see you advocating a perpetual motion engine, do you expect me to keep quiet unless i can offer a better one?  Do you really want to waste your life building an inherently & impossibly flawed machine, or would you like someone to point out your project is doomed to failure from the moment you start?

[Rassah]

Crumbs, I don't see anywhere in that post of yours where Lex Mercatoria was suggested for anything other than "To protect your property." Did you forget to quote something?